Title IX solutions?

third choice wrote:

You see, until the 20th Century, there was no such thing as a Federal Income Tax.

This is slightly off topic, but the only reason for the federal income tax is to pay interest on a finite amount of money (not enough of which was produced to cover any interest, but only to create more debt) to the federal reserve. Which, rather than being a part of the government, or owned by the government, is owned by the bank of england and a few wealthy individuals. The government could pay off the fed, take control of it and thus eliminate the federal income tax but, being a front for those who own the fed, they won't. So if you think you are going to get rid of their control of you, think again.

But that doesn't have anything to do with Title IX.

It has to do with the misuse of money, greed, power, and control.

If you are really concerned about getting rid of those things, then a good start would be to get rid of college football.

Wanting money and power are completely natural things that have always been a part of every organism on this planet (well, they didn't have a currency, but you get the point). I'm not going to explain why right now, because I don't want to type it out.

But it should be obvious. Until you grow up out of your left-wing world and accept that, you just won't have a real grasp on reality.

third choice wrote:

Until you grow up out of your left-wing world and accept that, you just won't have a real grasp on reality.

Hey Mr. Reality. Why don't you organize a million man march on Washington with the hopes of overthrowing Title IX? You could base your march on the injustices you have suffered at the hands of the left-wing feminist and feminist supporters. I'm sure millions will hear your plea and sympathize with the atrocities that you and other cross country runners, swimmers, golfers etc. have suffered through. Keep us posted.

You two (16x and dunes runner) consistently twist every response and use your iffy argument for Title IX to thinly disguise your contempt for men. What are your issues with men? That is the real question. Maybe you both would enjoy a romantic dinner for two.

Speedy gal wrote:

You two (16x and dunes runner) consistently twist every response and use your iffy argument for Title IX to thinly disguise your contempt for men. What are your issues with men? That is the real question. Maybe you both would enjoy a romantic dinner for two.

You might want to investigate what immature quality you have that automatically associates equality with male-bashing.

I don't have issues with men. I am married and I have a son in sports. I also have a dozen or so male friends and running partners, and also coach several of these men.

If your actually female, you may want to expand by reading some of the running biographies of women such as Joan Benoit, Francine Larriue, Doris Brown, Kathleen Switzer, Kim Merrit, Julie Brown, Nina Kusick and others. You may gain some appreciation for those before you who were not "allowed" to compete in marathons, did not have teams in high school or college to show their talents, those that had little opportunity to compete in any running arena.

It is possible, but highly unlikely at that point you will see how they individually fought for women to have opportunities in running and sports - you know, the opportunities that you have enjoyed since birth. I'm sure. Then, possibly you will feel gratitude towards these women and seek to understand why so many do not have an interest in retarding the process.

don't count sports that don't have an opposite gender sport

These title IX threads always degenerate to the same mush. At the end we have the liberal feminists (16x and Dunes Runner) vs. the male chauvinists. Since I am posting at the end of this thread feel free to consider me the latter, even though anyone that has met me knows that?s not the case.

Most the people with common sense realize at this point that the discussion is no longer fruitful. However the fanatics are too entrenched in their own argument to even consider that the ?opposition? may have some good points.

I think Jim Fiore, 16x, and (gasp) even Dunes Runner make some good points, but I still don?t agree with everything they say. I think that some changes are needed for title IX to work. The fact is that football is going to be around no matter how much some people dislike it. Saying otherwise is not realistic, yet people just keep spewing non realistic solutions. That is where this gets old. Chances are that no viable solution will please everyone.

Sorry, but I had to vent a bit. This is my last post on the subject (at least in this thread!)

-Clay

Ive have just sat for the past 45 min and read each one of these posts. I have to say, there have been numerous well thought out points, some senseless ranting, and just plain idiocracy, on both sides of the arguement.

Third choice, you start each post making completely valid points, but then you add comments that just detract from the strength of what you are trying to say.

16x, and Dunes, I understand your points about equality in terms of scholarship distribution. But title IX should not regulate participation rates. Like third choice, you have good points, but then it seems like you get annoyed because you are offended by what the minority of men feel, and you stereotype.

I would like to propose a question to anyone who has left a message on here. Have any of you actually been affected by Title IX? By this I mean, have you lost/gained a spot on a team because of it? Unfortunately I have fealt the negative rath of TitleIX. I had been racing competitvely since the 6th grade, with the dream of running in college. Now, I ran my first year of DI competition at University at Buffalo (It seems that the state schools are the ones that feel they are the most effect by this legislation, and to suggest to me that alumni can donate more than what a state can, based on revenue in New York alone, is ridiculous). Grant it, I did not run exceptionally well. Now we had try outs for my sophomore year, and I was cut. They did not give me any other reason to be getting cut, than the men's cross country team was limited to a certain roster size. Not scholarship but roster.

Title IX has made great strides for women in collegiate atheletics, there is no doubt in my mind, and no statistic that can prove other wise. Everyone knows that football and basketball gets the money, and why shouldnt they, they bring in the fans. Even if at best a football team averages 10,000(which is well below the standard of I believe 20K) or the basketball team gets 700 or 800, compare that to the number of people who attend a swim meet, or a track meet, or a soccer game, and they all pale in comparison. If you want to regulate scholarships, I am all for that. Leave the participation numbers alone. Discourage walk ons and you are taking down one of the corner stones of collegiate athletics that make it great.

What I do know is that my roomate is the number one runner at Buffalo now, and is one of the top runners in the MAC conference. And every day he goes to practice, I so wish that I was going with him, and the only reason I am not other than diminished ability because I have been out of the sport for so long, is because the women's team allows 20 runners, and then men's team allows 15. None of this has to do with scholarships.

I have only hit on a few points, so please forgive me if I left anything out, I will respond respectively to any post in reply to this.

yayaya wrote:

I would like to propose a question to anyone who has left a message on here. Have any of you actually been affected by Title IX? By this I mean, have you lost/gained a spot on a team because of it? .

Because of Title IX, my high school added girl's x-c,( I was already a senior) one of the first ever teams in my state. I ran in the first thru the fourth state girl's track meets ever. Because of these created opportunities, I was able to earn a scholarship to a D1 school to run both xc and track, and I didn't get it because they were "recruiting heavily". There were still very few scholarships available, and my options were very limited. Our first ever conference meet in college did not occur until I was already a junior, but because of Title IX, the conference decided they must comply and add women's teams.

I never played an organized sport until I was 14. There were no junior high teams, no little league, no soccer, there was nothing - but a full gamet of sports for boys. I know for a fact that high schools and junior highs added girl's teams BECAUSE of Title IX.

what year did they "add xc because of Title IX" at your school?

I find it hard to believe that there were no sports in your entire life until you wer 14 years old. Unless you are a 40 year old person. I think that title 9 was good at a time but I think that as of now it has surpassed its need and now hurts many mens sports. I can't say I have been directly affected by title 9 but I will say that if our team had as many scholarships as our womens team I think we would be able to bring in a lot more good people. Was title 9 good when it was created yes. Is it good now, I don't think so

I'm pretty sure I posted the stats already that showed that the number of women in sports had increased dramatically in the years BEFORE Title IX, and that the rate of increase has actually slowed down since the law was passed and even more so since the law has been enforced. It has done almost nothing for anyone, while doing a world of hurt to many.

Plus there are no women in any college who are currently denied the opportunity to compete in any sports unless they aren't talented enough to merit consideration, i.e., a hypothetical 125-lb. woman who wants to play O-Line for Nebraska. Any woman who wants to compete in a sport at a university can unless they aren't talented enough to make the roster/squad.

There are plenty of logical arguments in support of aspects of Title IX, but as a whole it needs to be modernized and upgraded. In this thread, the women's inegalitarian arguments for Title IX are circa 1980. Today's world is an entirely different scenario. Likely the women posting refuse to acknowledge the rationale of the present day, because it doesn't support their outdated points; but IMHO they are not too dim to comprehend it.

In a nutshell, their argument(s) has little bases (plural) in a contemporary climate and resolving the challenges surrounding gender-equity issues in college sports.

As much as I would like to believe otherwise, a cross country race will NEVER be able to generate as much profit as a football game